jansvoboda11 added a comment. In D124287#3476040 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124287#3476040>, @vsapsai wrote:
> In D124287#3474369 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124287#3474369>, @jansvoboda11 > wrote: > >> This sounds reasonable to me. What use-cases does `ASTStructuralEquivalence` >> fit better than ODR hashes? > > I think the biggest advantage of `ASTStructuralEquivalence` is that it > doesn't affect memory consumption by Decls. But it makes repeated comparisons > more expensive. > > Another `ASTStructuralEquivalence` advantage is that it's easier to add new > checks. For example, comparing ivars is pretty trivial with > `ASTStructuralEquivalence` but with ODR hash we need to handle that ivar > types can be structs/unions, including anonymous and nested structs. > > Cannot say that for sure but I think `ASTStructuralEquivalence` is easier to > extend and to adopt for different purposes, while ODR hash seems to be more > invasive. But this argument is more hand-wavy. > > Most likely `ASTStructuralEquivalence` has other positive qualities but > that's what I was able to come up off the top of my head. And you can see > that in my decision-making `ASTStructuralEquivalence` doesn't look like a > compelling option. Makes sense. If most `Decl` classes had the member variables that enable ODR hashing, would it make sense to keep structural equivalence logic around? That sounds a bit redundant to me. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124287/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124287 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
